Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-08-31
FORAKER vs.. LEE.
WHY GOVERNOR FORAKER DRErEp
GOVERNOR LEES REQUIsIrI0N.
The Correspondence In the skiles Case
Foraker Shields the Prisoner
from Justice.

The Dispatch yesterday published
the fact that Governor Foraker had re-
fused to grant rendition warrant for
one Odell, as requested by Governor
Lee in his requisition on him. This is
the second case in which the Governor
OF Ohio has disregarded n requisition
Of the Governor of Virginia for fugi-
tive from justice wanted in this State.
The case nOw-,John w. Skiles-was
prior 10 the one first mentioned, and
the correspondence between the two
Governors herewith given fully ex-
plains the matter:
STATE OF ONO,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
OFFIcE OF THE GOVERNOR,
COLUMBUS, May 6, 1887.
Ills Erccllcncy FGtzhugh Lee, Gov
ornor Of Virginia, Richmond. Va. &:
Dear Sir,-In the matter of your re-
QUESTION for the extradition of John
w. Skiles, charged by indictment with
the crime Of having stolen a check
for S6, 600 in Allegheny county, Va, in
January, 1881, and with being now a
fugitive in Ohio from justice, l re-
spectfully inform you that have, as in
my last letter l advised you 1 should
DO, made careful investigation of the
facts involved.
find from documentary evidence sub
mitted to me that the facts are, briefly
stated, that in December, 1880, and Jan
uary, 1881, John W. Skies, then citi-
zen of Ohio, sold to Ryals, Hughes &
Ryals, the parties mentioned as the
owners of the check which he is
charged with having stolen, silver
mine in Gunnison county, Col, for the
price of SIP, ,000-S6, 600 to be paid in
cash, notes to be given for the deferred
payment (Which notes, however, never
were given, and the money they repre-
sented never was paid, and that in
pursuance of such sale he subsequently,
in January, 1881, drew a draft for
5000, as per agreement between the
parties, through John Wanamaker, OF
Philadelphia, and the Augusta National
Bank, of Stanton, Va, upon Ryals,
Hughes & Ryals, which they paid.
also find from documentary evi-
dence submitted to me that SkiIes
had previously bought this mine, pay
ing for it $4,S33.33. l find also
from the letters of j. ID. Ryals
that for a long time subsequent
to their purchase of this property from
Skies they were engaged in working
the same, and that Ryals frequently
spoke of the property as one with
which they were satisfied and from
which they expected large returns.
1t is also established to my entire
satisfaction by testimony submitted
that Skilos, although his whereabouts
have been all the while known to these
parties, never had any demand what
ever made upon him for the refunding
of any part of this money; neither
did he have any complaint that he had
even made any false representations in
inducing them to make the purchase OF
the property from him.
/ find furthermore that J. d. Ryals,
who seems to be the active prosecuting
witness in this matter, married the
daughter of John w. Skies in the
spring of 1881 that subsequently she
sought and obtained n divorce from
him for neglect and cruel and abusive
treatment, and that Ryals, having re-
moved to Colorado, and having been
admitted to the practice of law at the
bar of that State, was debarred by or
der of court upon proceedings duly
had.
further find that ever since the di-
vorce proceedings above referred to
Ryals has been seeking in various ways
to annoy his father-in-law and his fam
ily.
in addition to the foregoing should
state that Mr.. Skies is man who has
a good business and social position in
this community, so far as | can learn
of the same, and whose character has
never been assailed in any way what
ever.
Upon this state of facts it seems to
me that the transaction which is at the
basis of this proceeding does not afford
any warrant for such charge as that
which is made, and that the proceeding
WHICH mas Dctu luStltuttu CunHOO DV
said to be in good faith or calculated to
vindicate justice or promote the public
interests. On the contrary, it appears
TO me to be case where an unworthy
man is seeking to make use OF an ex-
traordinary process for purely selfish
and entirely unworthy purposes. En-
tertaining this view of the matter, | am
of the opinion that ought not to issue
a warrant, and therefore decline to do
so until, at least, am further advised.
In doing so | beg to assure your Ex-
cellency, if that be necessary, that no
disrespect whatever is intended. On
the contrary, I am quite confident that
under the same circumstances your
Excellency would and should take the
same action / have taken.
Very respectfully, yours, &c.,
j. b. FORAKER.
Dictated.-Should / be misled IN
reaching any of the conclusions have
named shall be glad to be corrected.
+.